In recent weeks several incidents have raised important questions about how we should view independent institutions in Taiwan. Examples include debate over the status and powers of the planned anti-corruption commission; an argument over decision-making at the National Communications Commission (NCC); and an increase in the number of directors at Public Television Service (PTS) through a legislative amendment to the Public Television Act (公共電視法).
These incidents unfortunately show that in many cases independent institutions are not accorded the respect they deserve.
The question of whether an anti-corruption commission should be established has focused on the independence of such an institution, including questions about its status, responsibilities and administrative powers. On the whole, the debate has stressed the need to respect independent institutions.
In contrast, there has been much less discussion about the changes at the NCC and PTS. The independence of these institutions has recently been the focus of controversy, making them worthy of further attention and investigation.
Take, for example, the legislature’s decision to increase the number of PTS board directors by amending the Public Television Act. The PTS is an important organization and its independence should be respected. However, the only stated reason for the legislative amendment was to increase its diversity. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used its legislative majority to increase the size of the board, from 11 to 15 members, to 17 to 21. Unfortunately, the party’s legislative caucus did not feel the need to explain why.
Has the board really displayed such a lack of diversity over the last 10 years that the KMT had to increase the number of directors immediately on returning to power?
The KMT government has only triggered speculation that it made the move to weaken the influence of those directors appointed by the previous Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. This constitutes an excellent example of lack of respect for an independent institution.
The same thing happened at the NCC, with the legislature proposing amendments that may undermine the NCC’s independence. For example, legislators want to be able to fire commission members who don’t perform well. As a demonstration of administrative unity, the legislature and the Cabinet are considering working together to change the current collegiate system to an executive system, with the chairman appointed by the Cabinet.
Consider what would happen to the commission’s independence if the legislature were to approve these changes.
If everyone could understand and respect the importance of independent institutions, then even if legislators felt they had to make such decisions, they would at least take other opinions into account by discussing the matter with non-governmental organizations in order to reach a conclusion that would optimize the benefits rather than just pushing ahead with changes regardless of disagreement.
For example, it would not be that difficult to organize public hearings to hold more detailed discussions on whether the commission should maintain its collegiate system or how to evaluate the performance of its members.
Officials do not know everything simply by virtue of being officials and they cannot execute the powers of their office as they please simply because they are elected or hold power. Behaving in that way merely reinforces the belief that they do not understand that independent institutions demand respect.
Of course, the legislature has the power to make decisions in the name of the public, but if legislators really understood the responsibility that comes with being the highest representative institution in the land, they would not willfully amend laws without any consideration of the consequences. Instead, they would listen to public opinion with humility, particularly when it comes to independent institutions.
Lawmakers should consult more with non-governmental organizations because if they do not it will not matter how many independent institutions we have or how well they are organized.
As long as our elected representative institutions remain so unruly and self-indulgent, anything they say will be untrustworthy. This is true whether we are talking about the establishment of the anti-corruption commission, the NCC’s decision-making system or the PTS board of directors. This is what lies at the heart of the conflict over these institutions and it is something the government needs to think long and hard about.
The Ma administration must learn how to respect supposedly independent institutions or take responsibility for the consequences of its inability to do so.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Perry Svensson
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
The following case, which I experienced as an interpreter, illustrates that many issues in Taiwan’s legal system originate from law enforcement personnel. The problem stems not so much from their education and training, but their personal attitude — characterized by excessive self-confidence paired with a lack of accountability. One day at 10:30am, I was called to a police station in New Taipei City for an emergency. I arrived an hour later. A man was tied to a chair, having been arrested at the airport due to an outstanding arrest warrant. It quickly became apparent that the case was related to
RSS